Compare and contrast the ideas of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau.
In the seventeenth century three great philosophers developed theories on how mankind governs themselves and human nature. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all came to the conclusion that mankind creates a social contract within society. Even though they all created different versions of the social contract all three philosophers agree that some rights must be given up for the good of mankind and that before there was society man lived in a state of nature. Although all three philosophers believe in the state of nature and a social contract, they have different beliefs on what the state of nature is, what a social contract is, why and how it was created, and the role of the government in the society.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all believed that before there was a society where political government existed man lived in a state of nature and that if the government ceased to exist man would revert back to living in the state of nature. All three men did agree that self-preservation was the underlying theme in the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes was the first to suggest the idea of the state of nature in his book Leviathan written in 1651. Hobbes believed that the state of nature was the state of war. Because no morality existed everyone lived in constant fear of one another. He believed that in the original state of nature mankind had unlimited rights but with those unlimited rights came the right to harm one who endangers one’s own self-preservation. Hobbes believed that the number one priority in the state of nature is self-preservation and because mankind had the right to protect themselves at all costs even if it meant killing another man life would become and endless “war of all against all” (Bella ominum contra omnes). Thus the life of all mankind would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes maintained that the only way to avoid this life was by a social contract in which man agreed to transfer sovereignty to a monarchy. The monarch’s rule would be absolute but not by divine right. Leviathan was written in 1651, during the English civil war, and we can conclude that the war greatly influenced Hobbes’ political views. He believed that mankind was self-absorbed and could not be trusted in the state of nature and that limits must be placed on freedoms and inalienable (natural) rights. Locke on the other hand, perceived the original state of nature to be a state of perfect freedom to do whatever they wish. Locke believed that law was reason and that reason taught people that one should not deprive another of his life, health, liberty, or possessions and anyone who disobeys this should be punished. Locke based his view of the state of nature on the Christian belief that all men are God’s possessions and no one owns themselves. While Hobbes believed that people were born vicious and corrupt, Locke believed that the mind was a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that people were born with no innate conceptions and that society shaped mankind. Locke believed that the state of nature was not necessarily bad or good instead it is chaotic since there is the possibility of war. Because of the chaos men choose to give up the unlimited freedoms of the state of nature in order to insure protection of their life, health, liberty, and possessions and self-preservation. The original state of nature, according to Rousseau, was that mankind is free and equal in the state of nature. He is often accredited with the term “noble savage.” He, unlike Hobbes, believes that in the state of nature man is innocent, virtuous and free and only thorough society does he become corrupt and wicked. However, Rousseau did believe that because self-preservation was mankind’s priority cooperation was impossible and that was why a government was needed. While Hobbes believed that in the state of nature people are greedy and aggressive, Locke and Rousseau believed that Mankind favored peace, respect, and virtue in the state of nature. Regardless, all three believed that a government was necessary through that a social contract that stated the purpose of departing from the state of nature was needed.
A social contract was an unwritten contract between the government and the people. Even though the men had different views on the state of nature Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau developed similar social contracts. All three men agreed that the reason for a government was for it to provide protection and social order. A social contract is an agreement that men will relinquish some of their inalienable rights and freedoms provided in the state of nature in order to gain protection and social order. Hobbes believed that the people, through a social contract, would willingly surrender their sovereignty, also known as their natural rights, and agree to subject to civil law or political authority (a government) in exchange for peace, protection, social order and civil rights. Hobbes’ social contract denied the right of rebellion against the monarchy and did not support the separation of powers. He believed that separation of powers was an invitation to unnecessary conflict and war. Also he said, unlike both Locke and Rousseau that the contract was not between the government and the people. Instead it was between the citizens themselves and it stated that they would all agree to accept the rule of the monarchy. Locke’s social contract stated that the people would give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the insurance that their natural rights, the rights to life, health, liberty, and possessions, would be secure. Locke did not believe in the absolute rule of the government. He believed that a limited government was best for society and if the government overstepped their limits the than they forfeited their side of the contract thus making it null and void. Rousseau’s social contract, like Locke’s, transferred some of the freedoms mankind had in the state of nature to the government in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. People convert their liberty from independence in the original state of nature, into political and moral freedom. Also in Rousseau’s social contract the individual was to surrender natural liberty to one another, fusing their wills into the general will which is the sum of all private interest of the general people. Although their social contracts have some differences they were all created to improve things and create social order among the people and in all the contracts some of their freedoms, if not all, were surrendered to the government.
The role of the government as well as the type of government directly depended on the social contracts created. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau had different ideas on what role the government should play in society. Hobbes, the most conservative of the three, believed that the type of government needed was an absolute monarchy. He believed that the monarchy’s role in society was to impose law and order to prevent the state of war. He also believed that the government was designed to control, not necessarily represent the people. Once again we can conclude that the English civil war is responsible for shaping his views. If the monarchy was restored to power than the state of war would end. He believed that mankind was not able to avoid war unless there were strict laws and guidelines they had to follow and the government was simply there to in force those rules and guidelines. He believed that mankind, in the state of nature, only do what is in their best self interest and eventually the people would give their freedoms to the government to escape war and if there is no power to keep the people in check they would inevitably return to war. For this reason Hobbes maintains that the power of the sovereign must be absolute and revolution was only justified if the people were at war with the government. Locke, the liberal/moderate, believed that the sole purpose of the government was to protect mans natural rights, life, health, liberty, possessions. He believed that the government should represent the people and that representation was a safeguard against oppression. Locke’s book The Second Treatise of Civil Government, written in 1790, was written to justify man’s right revolution to overthrow an unjust government. Locke maintains that if the legislature is not protecting the people’s natural rights and not representing the will of the majority than it should be replaced and you are morally obligated to replace it. Locke believed that a representative democracy as well as an oligarchy or monarchy would be a fine government as long as it represented the will of the majority and protected the people’s rights. Rousseau’s most famous book The Social Contract written in 1762 explains his views on the way to achieve a legitimate government. Rousseau, the most liberal of the three, believed that the purpose of the government was to bring people into harmony and unite them under the general will. He also believed, unlike Hobbes and Locke that the government must not only represent the people but the people themselves must be actively involved in civic duties. Rousseau believed that people were inclined to be stupid creatures and that they must have equal participation in legislative decisions because if they were a part of the government they would work and fight without complaint with the belief that whatever helps society will be beneficial to themselves. He like Locke believed that without the input of the people there can be no legitimate government. Rousseau wanted a direct democracy to enact the general will. The role of government was what the three philosophers contrasted the most on but they all believed that some form of government was needed.
John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all believed in the state of nature and a social contract and the importance of the presence of some form of government. Although they had different views on all of these things they also had some similarities. Regardless of their differences they all believed that in the state of nature mankind’s main priority is self-preservation and that in order to achieve stability order and protection people must surrender some of their freedoms to a government. Also they all believed that divine right does not exist the right to rule is given to the government by the people.
Compare and contrast the ideas of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau.
In the seventeenth century three great philosophers developed theories on how mankind governs themselves and human nature. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all came to the conclusion that mankind creates a social contract within society. Even though they all created different versions of the social contract all three philosophers agree that some rights must be given up for the good of mankind and that before there was society man lived in a state of nature. Although all three philosophers believe in the state of nature and a social contract, they have different beliefs on what the state of nature is, what a social contract is, why and how it was created, and the role of the government in the society.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all believed that before there was a society where political government existed man lived in a state of nature and that if the government ceased to exist man would revert back to living in the state of nature. All three men did agree that self-preservation was the underlying theme in the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes was the first to suggest the idea of the state of nature in his book Leviathan written in 1651. Hobbes believed that the state of nature was the state of war. Because no morality existed everyone lived in constant fear of one another. He believed that in the original state of nature mankind had unlimited rights but with those unlimited rights came the right to harm one who endangers one’s own self-preservation. Hobbes believed that the number one priority in the state of nature is self-preservation and because mankind had the right to protect themselves at all costs even if it meant killing another man life would become and endless “war of all against all” (Bella ominum contra omnes). Thus the life of all mankind would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes maintained that the only way to avoid this life was by a social contract in which man agreed to transfer sovereignty to a monarchy. The monarch’s rule would be absolute but not by divine right. Leviathan was written in 1651, during the English civil war, and we can conclude that the war greatly influenced Hobbes’ political views. He believed that mankind was self-absorbed and could not be trusted in the state of nature and that limits must be placed on freedoms and inalienable (natural) rights. Locke on the other hand, perceived the original state of nature to be a state of perfect freedom to do whatever they wish. Locke believed that law was reason and that reason taught people that one should not deprive another of his life, health, liberty, or possessions and anyone who disobeys this should be punished. Locke based his view of the state of nature on the Christian belief that all men are God’s possessions and no one owns themselves. While Hobbes believed that people were born vicious and corrupt, Locke believed that the mind was a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that people were born with no innate conceptions and that society shaped mankind. Locke believed that the state of nature was not necessarily bad or good instead it is chaotic since there is the possibility of war. Because of the chaos men choose to give up the unlimited freedoms of the state of nature in order to insure protection of their life, health, liberty, and possessions and self-preservation. The original state of nature, according to Rousseau, was that mankind is free and equal in the state of nature. He is often accredited with the term “noble savage.” He, unlike Hobbes, believes that in the state of nature man is innocent, virtuous and free and only thorough society does he become corrupt and wicked. However, Rousseau did believe that because self-preservation was mankind’s priority cooperation was impossible and that was why a government was needed. While Hobbes believed that in the state of nature people are greedy and aggressive, Locke and Rousseau believed that Mankind favored peace, respect, and virtue in the state of nature. Regardless, all three believed that a government was necessary through that a social contract that stated the purpose of departing from the state of nature was needed.
A social contract was an unwritten contract between the government and the people. Even though the men had different views on the state of nature Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau developed similar social contracts. All three men agreed that the reason for a government was for it to provide protection and social order. A social contract is an agreement that men will relinquish some of their inalienable rights and freedoms provided in the state of nature in order to gain protection and social order. Hobbes believed that the people, through a social contract, would willingly surrender their sovereignty, also known as their natural rights, and agree to subject to civil law or political authority (a government) in exchange for peace, protection, social order and civil rights. Hobbes’ social contract denied the right of rebellion against the monarchy and did not support the separation of powers. He believed that separation of powers was an invitation to unnecessary conflict and war. Also he said, unlike both Locke and Rousseau that the contract was not between the government and the people. Instead it was between the citizens themselves and it stated that they would all agree to accept the rule of the monarchy. Locke’s social contract stated that the people would give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the insurance that their natural rights, the rights to life, health, liberty, and possessions, would be secure. Locke did not believe in the absolute rule of the government. He believed that a limited government was best for society and if the government overstepped their limits the than they forfeited their side of the contract thus making it null and void. Rousseau’s social contract, like Locke’s, transferred some of the freedoms mankind had in the state of nature to the government in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. People convert their liberty from independence in the original state of nature, into political and moral freedom. Also in Rousseau’s social contract the individual was to surrender natural liberty to one another, fusing their wills into the general will which is the sum of all private interest of the general people. Although their social contracts have some differences they were all created to improve things and create social order among the people and in all the contracts some of their freedoms, if not all, were surrendered to the government.
The role of the government as well as the type of government directly depended on the social contracts created. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau had different ideas on what role the government should play in society. Hobbes, the most conservative of the three, believed that the type of government needed was an absolute monarchy. He believed that the monarchy’s role in society was to impose law and order to prevent the state of war. He also believed that the government was designed to control, not necessarily represent the people. Once again we can conclude that the English civil war is responsible for shaping his views. If the monarchy was restored to power than the state of war would end. He believed that mankind was not able to avoid war unless there were strict laws and guidelines they had to follow and the government was simply there to in force those rules and guidelines. He believed that mankind, in the state of nature, only do what is in their best self interest and eventually the people would give their freedoms to the government to escape war and if there is no power to keep the people in check they would inevitably return to war. For this reason Hobbes maintains that the power of the sovereign must be absolute and revolution was only justified if the people were at war with the government. Locke, the liberal/moderate, believed that the sole purpose of the government was to protect mans natural rights, life, health, liberty, possessions. He believed that the government should represent the people and that representation was a safeguard against oppression. Locke’s book The Second Treatise of Civil Government, written in 1790, was written to justify man’s right revolution to overthrow an unjust government. Locke maintains that if the legislature is not protecting the people’s natural rights and not representing the will of the majority than it should be replaced and you are morally obligated to replace it. Locke believed that a representative democracy as well as an oligarchy or monarchy would be a fine government as long as it represented the will of the majority and protected the people’s rights. Rousseau’s most famous book The Social Contract written in 1762 explains his views on the way to achieve a legitimate government. Rousseau, the most liberal of the three, believed that the purpose of the government was to bring people into harmony and unite them under the general will. He also believed, unlike Hobbes and Locke that the government must not only represent the people but the people themselves must be actively involved in civic duties. Rousseau believed that people were inclined to be stupid creatures and that they must have equal participation in legislative decisions because if they were a part of the government they would work and fight without complaint with the belief that whatever helps society will be beneficial to themselves. He like Locke believed that without the input of the people there can be no legitimate government. Rousseau wanted a direct democracy to enact the general will. The role of government was what the three philosophers contrasted the most on but they all believed that some form of government was needed.
John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all believed in the state of nature and a social contract and the importance of the presence of some form of government. Although they had different views on all of these things they also had some similarities. Regardless of their differences they all believed that in the state of nature mankind’s main priority is self-preservation and that in order to achieve stability order and protection people must surrender some of their freedoms to a government. Also they all believed that divine right does not exist the right to rule is given to the government by the people.